< September 9 September 11 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close; duplicate nomination. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Hughes (soccer) (3rd nomination). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hughes (soccer)[edit]

Justin_Hughes_(soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Hughes (soccer) (3rd nomination)]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GauchoDude (talk • contribs) 2008/09/10 23:15:27


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Dawn Cody

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G4 by Orangemike (non-admin closure) – Toon(talk) 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Dawn Cody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Actress who's most notable role was a bit-part on Pleasantville, and has had only other minor/extra roles in non-notable television shows. WP:ACTOR requires the subject to have "... had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions," which this person clearly hasn't had. There is no evidence of a "cult following" or having "...made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." 49 news ghits, none of which appear to refer to her, which makes it unlikely that she qualifies under WP:N, and there is no evidence of this within the article. – Toon(talk) 00:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potato Bag gang[edit]

Potato Bag gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008 Indef blocked sockpuppet of User:Mynameisstanley. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply. So do you think the New York Times made this up? You only have to click on the reference to check that this was a real gang. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan McMurray[edit]

Jordan McMurray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find even one link to support this article. It's a stretch to think that one could compose and co-produce "many hit songs" for people as high-profile as Snoop Dog and not have even one hit on Google (besides this article.) Rob Banzai (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Pro Wrestling (Australia)[edit]

Impact Pro Wrestling (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and not notable. Community television deal does not prove notability and article contains much information that is not cited and appears to be advertising. Was prodded but prod removed without appropriate improvement !! Justa Punk !! 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 121.208.248.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceMagic[edit]

AfDs for this article:
ServiceMagic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on a small company. The are few claims (and little evidence) of impact, and only one local news source (the others are press releases). This was nominated for deletion two years ago, but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind its being kept then. CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which aspects of notability criteria does it fulfil? It certainly doesn't comply with sourcing requirements, what with said sources being one local newspaper story and a few press releases. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'They are one of IACs largest, most profitable companies and provide a service to millions of homeowners. ' [citation needed]. Those are strong claims not borne out by any reliable sources (and no, press releases don't count). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are more notable sources: SEC Filing showing $93 million in revenue for 2007, listed on INC 500, story on NY Times, listed as #7 Real Estate web site on Inman. This should address the nominator's claims for deletion. --Spidermidget (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Zilbersteyn[edit]

Vladimir Zilbersteyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hughes (soccer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Justin Hughes (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. Relisted due to verdict of last AfD, which is listed here. First AfD was no consensus with old and now outdated reasons, listed here. GauchoDude (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Knutson[edit]

Robert C. Knutson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:VERIFY - notability is claimed but no reliable sources are cited - in fact none of the references mentions the subject at all, even in passing. And there's a serious conflict of interest - the author is the subject's son andy (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that this player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, but does meet the general case of WP:BIO. As WP:ATHLETE is a special case of WP:BIO and does not supersede it, the subject is therefore notable. Likewise, WP:FOOTY/N is a special case of WP:ATHLETE, and does not supersede WP:BIO. lifebaka++ 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nimo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alex Nimo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is the 3rd nomination, not 2nd. Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. Relisted due to verdict of last AfD, which is listed here. First AfD was no consensus with other bundled players, listed here. GauchoDude (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Interesting, you do know that if any article passes the normal WP:N of coverage in WP:RS independent of the subject then they are notable? The WP:ATHLETE is an exception for additional inclusion of those that do not pass the standard WP:BIO, which is the same as WP:N, substantial coverage in WP:RS that are independent of the subject? Aboutmovies (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling to see how any of the sources provided pass WP:BIO. There are hundreds of stories about footballers moving clubs/joining academies who don't meet criteria. BBC produces articles about non-league players who clearly fail the notability. --Jimbo[online] 09:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those sources would make him pass WP:BIO, like Jimbo says it would be quite easy to find a number of sources for hundreds of non-league players in the UK but it doesn't make them notable. Heck I could even find sources on my footballing exploits but it doesn't make me notable enough for an article. Basement12 (T.C) 13:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I linked above -- two feature articles focusing entirely on Nimo from the Portland Tribune, one of which covered him when he was playing in Florida (opposite side of the country) would definitely be significant per WP:BIO. I haven't had a chance to work them into the article yet, but I will. -Pete (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles "PREP WEDNESDAY Road to join U.S. elite, starts in refugee camp" and "Nimo gets All-America team honor" and "RSL: Rookie toughened by years as refugee" as can easily be discerned from the titles, are only about him. These three are independent/RS and substantial coverage. Throw in the two FIFA articles which contain his name in the article title (also independent since he does not work for FIFA) and that's five, not counting the ones Pete has discovered. Please note, that if this was just another player, he probably wouldn't pass BIO, (in contrast to the above concern: the articles created by the BBC for the non-league players likely do not provide substantial/significant coverage of those player) but here you have the additional sob story of being a refugee and overcoming great odds, basically the American dream that the media loves to eat up and regurgitate. That's why there is so much on him, it ain't just about football/soccer. Further, if there were 5000 sources for a player all with substantial/independent coverage, but they never played in a professional league, it sounds like that might not be enough for the deleters here. Remember that deletion is not about what you find notable, but about applying the preexisting guidelines, which this article passes under either WP:N or WP:BIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:ATHLETE is a section of that guideline. He is not notable for anything outside of his football career therefore his notability should be established as an athlete. He has never played professionally and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, the relevant part of WP:BIO. Basement12 (T.C) 23:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plain and simply, nope. Read the guidleine, the whole thing and pay attention to what it says at the header of the section Additional criteria, for which Athlete is a SUB section of:
Additional criteria
A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.
Emphasis mine. So, he passes not only WP:BIO under bio's standard criteria, but he also passes under the general WP:N criteria. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're quoting guidelines, from WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic .... "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion"
I'd say that gives me leeway to apply my opinion as to what I see as notable. Therfore i'm going to stick with my view, as he is an athlete who has not competed at the top level, regardless of how many sources have been written about his performances at youth levels or his early life. Its almost certainly academic anyway as he'll no doubt play a pro game eventually and then he can have an article, but please don't suggest i'm ignorant of the guidelines. Basement12 (T.C) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has always been that "presumption issue" but that is not what you were arguing above. You have been arguing he doesn't meet ATHLETE and FOOTY and BIO. So, do you have any other arguments you want to throw out there like WP:IAR or simply the Basement12 inclusion guidelines now that your original argument was undermined? Aboutmovies (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My only further advice to you would be to take a quick look at AfD Wikietiquette and possibly WP:DBAD as well, the aim here is to gain a consensus not to try and undermine the thoughts/arguements of other editors. Basement12 (T.C) 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo can you clarify for me the "as far as I know" thing? Are you saying you've seen it and it IS "a 10 sentance paragraph just stating he's made the All-American team" or that you haven't seen it and are guessing at what it MAY contain? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have put "As far as I know, The Oregonian reference could be a..." --Jimbo[online] 14:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can read it i'd be interested to know where as I can't find some of the articles searching the Oregonian website and I doubt the references were added directly from the original publication itself. Basement12 (T.C) 14:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some tips on accessing Oregonian content online, etc. can be found at WP:ORE/RD. Also User:Peteforsyth/O-vanish. -Pete (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, it explains the problem but I still can't find (using any of the methods described) the articles themselves to check what content is contained within them. Basement12 (T.C) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use this and copy and paste the article title from the Nimo article ref section, and you get a free preview of part of the article and info on how long it is. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks that worked and I can now find all the summaries. But they do seem to be little more than what Jimbo said, "a 10 sentance paragraph just stating he's made the All-American team". It is nothing more than local interest in the player as a footballer, thus saying to me they are trivial coverage. The only reference that might not fall into that category is the one from Fifa, however that article is not enough for WP:N, particularly given the fact that we tend to apply stricter criteria for sportspeople given the amount that is written about them at all levels of media, hence the existance of WP:FOOTY/N. Basement12 (T.C) 16:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basement, the summary clearly shows "Nimo gets All-America team honor " to be a 359 word article. Having looked at it myself, it has twelve paragraphs -- not one. Focused entirely on Nimo. I share your frustration that it's tough to find some of these articles online, but the fact that you can't see them does not give you grounds to speculate on what might or might not be there. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should clarify that, my point is that just because its 359 words long it doesn't change the fact that it is nothing more than local interest in the player as a footballer and no more important in establishing notability than if it had been 10 sentences long. There are clear and established precidents for dealing with the articles of young footballers and there is no reason for Alex Nimo to be an exception. Basement12 (T.C) 17:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The original nom has been demonstrated to be flawed. ATHLETE and FOOTY do not override WP:N or WP:BIO to require deletion. These last two !votes do not take into account the more recent discussion. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but ATHLETE and FOOTY were created because WP:N and WP:BIO were found not to be sufficient for dealing with articles concerning professional athletes, particularly when it comes to young players. I'm sure the users who placed the "votes" above were well aware of this given their involement in WP:FOOTY. Basement12 (T.C) 17:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK. I think the arguement being made here is essentially that, because of the clarifications made in WP:ATHLETE, and WP:FOOTY/N in particular, the events being covered do not pass WP:BIO, i.e. the events themselves are trivial and thus so is any coverage of them regardless of what publication that coverage is in. If there was extensive coverage for something other than being a youth international or playing in a non-competetive friendly the article should be kept (and being a refugee is not sufficient). Basement12 (T.C) 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Basement, thanks for summing up your position. The difficulty I have is this: some of the things you say are highly subjective. Whether or not an event is trivial, whether or not refugee status is significant, etc. In my view, this is precisely why we have a policy like WP:N: rather than have Wikipedia editors determine whether the nebulous totality of facts about a person or topic is sufficient to establish notability, we turn to the editorial decisions of established news organizations and the like. In this case, multiple organizations have determined that the totality of Nimo's life to date merit coverage of him as an individual. In applying the inclusion criterion, it is not up to us to determine on what basis they made that determination; the simple fact that they did is enough to establish notability.
I'd also like to address the oft-repeated concern about "local" coverage. None of the relevant policies (WP:N, WP:BIO, nor WP:RS) mention "local" coverage. They talk about the quality of a news organization, but not "how local" it is. If a publication qualifies as a reliable source, the "local" nature of it should not concern us as editors. If there were a case where broad coverage conflicted with local coverage that seemed to carry a bias of some sort, that might be worth exploring; but in terms of determining notability, it is not relevant. -Pete (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree to a certain extent about the issue of local coverage, but you need to understand that in the UK, and other countries where football is a far bigger sport than in the US, media coverage is far more extensive, all the way down to local papers that circulate within small towns or even villages. Thus many, many articles are written in reliable sources on players who represent small or even amateur clubs. The precident is to ignore this type of coverage, a recent example would be Giuseppe Sole's deletion, where sources included some from the BBC, but deletion occured because he had never played a professional, competetive game at senior level and thus failed WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N. The aim of ATHLETE and FOOTY/N is to keep the creation of articles like these from getting out of hand, by clearing up the loophole created by extensive and trivial coverage on sportspeople. Would you allow articles on the 500+ players in Conference National, the 1000+ in Conference North and Conference South, i'm sure reliable sources could be found for them all? Where would you suggest we draw the line? And as for "rather than have editors determine whether the nebulous totality of facts about a person or topic is sufficient to establish notability", how do you think WP:N was created in the first place, why are these other guidelines, which I am simply explaining in a more wordy way specifically to this case, any less valid? Basement12 (T.C) 19:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basement, you raise interesting points, but let's not leave aside a general discussion of where to draw the line. (Or move it to our talk pages, or elsewhere.) We have a specific article to decide on. The example that you bring up (the BBC article about Sole) is merely 3 sentences -- quite a different situation than the multiple full-length articles about Nimo. WP:FOOTYN and WP:ATHLETE might be helpful in clarifying cases like Sole's, where the concept of an "article" is not fully applicable, and a brief mention might otherwise be confused for substantial coverage. But that is not the case with Nimo. The articles about Nimo (two in the general interest Portland Tribune, one in the general interest Oregonian, and others in soccer-specific pubs) are real articles -- they have a lead paragraph, and then go into his life history and development as a player. They are not mere data entries that happen to be put on the web as distinct pages. Thus, there is nothing about Nimo that makes WP:N or WP:BIO difficult to interpret, there is no clarification needed. Full articles focusing on the subject in multiple independent publications equals notability. -Pete (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question of where to draw the line is a relevant one, and for now I continue the debate here as it could be seen as a test of the relatively new WP:FOOTY/N guidelines. You are attempting after all to go against what is now the established convention on notability of football players (which to a certain degree has come to ignore general notability guidelines), note the box at the top of WP:FOOTY/N that states "WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability that meet or exceed the expectations of notability or the applicable sub-guideline (BIO, ORG, NUMBER, ACADEMICS, and rest of the sub guidelines)." The key word there I think is exceed. The article from the BBC may only have be four paragraphs but it is from an internationally known media outlet. I don't have access to local publications for the Woking (i'm not sure what they would be) but i'm sure there would be a number of articles written about Sole, another young, up and coming player, that would be equivalent to those in the Portland Tribune, or Oregonian. I use Sole merely as a comparison of an article that i've seen recently which seems to have upheld FOOTY/N, perhaps over BIO. I merely ask that you don't dismiss the expectations set out by other editors who are perhaps more knowledgeable in the area. Just to clarify my position i'm not a part of WikiProject football, my only editing in the field is to keep an eye on articles relating to my favourite team, however I have tended to contribute to a lot of sport related deletion discussions. I will leave a message at WP:FOOTY to draw their attention to this discussion with the aim of getting a wider from its members on the application of their guidelines. Basement12 (T.C) 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is now done. - Basement12 (T.C) 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, if the role of the WP:FOOTYN essay (not adopted as guideline, I now see) needs clarifying, I'm happy to discuss a bit more. And your note to WP:FOOTY seems like a good idea, I'm interested to see what others say.
I think part of the confusion arises from the note in the essay box that you quote, that "WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays…that meet or exceed the expectations…" I think that's a somewhat vague statement, and it would be nice to see it clarified. First, being encouraged to write essays doesn't mean "are empowered to override policy" -- I support the intent to encourage public deliberation, but I don't think it should be understood to created binding rules. Second, what exactly is meant by "exceed" in this context? I'm not sure. Does it mean that the essays should concern topics that should be included even though they fail WP:N, or topics that should be excluded even though they pass WP:N? I'm not sure. Nor am I sure who it is doing the "encouraging," or on what basis.
In any event, I think it would be one thing if the only interest in Nimo derived from his being a football/soccer player. But as with pretty much everyone, it's a little more complex than that; he is also an Oregonian, a Liberian, a Floridian, and a political refugee. That's potentially four WikiProjects (or more) besides WP:FOOTY that may have insight into whether or not there should be an article on this guy. Sure, his prominence arises mainly from his playing football, but there is a point where the aggregate interest based on all those factors pushes an individual over the cusp of notability.
I firmly believe that in such cases, WP:N and WP:BIO are, and should be, the ultimate guide to making this sort of decision, where overlapping WikiProjects are concerned. The simple fact that several, non-soccer-specific publications have chosen to publish complete articles on the person satisfies the notability criterion, independent of whether the publications chose to write about him based on his soccer playing, his refugee status, his shoe size, or whatever else. -Pete (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE, but passes WP:BIO - especially the articles from FIFA. Which should take precedence? It's got to be WP:BIO in my eyes, so it's a Keep from me. - fchd (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basement, glad we've found some agreement. I think you're right that the precedent of various policies, guidelines and essays could be made a little clearer, and I'm happy to help work on that if you have any ideas of how to proceed. -Pete (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think the FIFA sources should be used to establish notability as, IMO, they are not sufficiently independent. Although not having a direct connection to Nimo it's obviously in FIFA's interest to raise the profile of football as a whole and the profile of events they organise in particular. Thus, IMO, they are likely to cover subjects that a truely independent source wouldn't. I accept this is just my view and is only one possible way of reading WP:N - others may, quite reasonably, have a quite different view. Dpmuk (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepLord Cornwallis (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: John, I think you've managed to state what took us a couple days and many paragraphs, in a nice tidy package. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. BJTalk 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Sarah Palin[edit]

Electoral history of Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is redundant to Sarah Palin#Electoral history (before User:Happyme22 removed this section while this AFD was still in process). It is not particularly long and will not get much longer in the near future. Though fixable, it doesn't look nearly as nice as the section in the main article. Redundant. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course other stuff exists, and there are other Wikipedia articles that structure things differently and place their links to their electoral history articles in different places. Many wikilink it under a heading in the article (John McCain#House and Senate career, 1982–2000, Ronald Reagan#Presidency (1981–1989), etc.). Still others place them in a "See also" section (George W. Bush#See also, Jimmy Carter#See also, etc.) Yet I see nothing wrong with the current format; it simply directs the reader to a different article for many reasons, including saving space in the main article. The nominator, however, has also voiced his opposition to a single link, so let me try something. Happyme22 (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is to discourage formatting an article based on what previous articles have been doing. As such, we're dealing with Sarah Palin, not the several other articles you've given. That said, a reader scrolls to the section looking for an overview, yet is given a link to another article. Is that what a Wikipedia article is supposed to do? ddAnd because the main article isn't all that long, we would lose nothing by merging the articles. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check out the summary I just wrote at the Palin page. It gives all the basics, and readers are directed to this article for more information. Here, more information is given with complete tables and more precise percentages. Happyme22 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check out the summary I just wrote at the Palin page. It gives all the basics, and readers are directed to this article for more information. Here, more information is given with complete tables and more precise percentages. Happyme22 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. Good balance for the rest of the article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it notable? She's only a candidate for Vice President? (Please read the basis for deletion before !voting)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Customer centric selling[edit]

Customer centric selling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A disputed prod, and speedied a number of times as spam, under various spellings/hyphenations. The initial Google hits all lead to a commercial organization which has copyrighted this phrase and uses it to label a commercial product; I suggest this is a WP:COATRACK for WP:SPAM, since there are no citations that I can locate that are anything other than a reference to this commercial product. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. --Masamage ♫ 23:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy![edit]

Grammy! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A "hit song" that's not been released. Apparently it's expected to hit number 5 (shall I lay a bet?). As per WP:MUSIC: "most songs do not merit an article". Booglamay (talk) - 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn the article has seen significant improvement over the course of this afd, and I am satisfied with the results. The "delete"s aren't really on any sort of foundation, so I'm calling WP:SNOW too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lipstick on a pig[edit]

Lipstick on a pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dicdef and list of differnet uses of the term in popular culture. Most of the article has been tagged with ((off-topic)), and I can't see it expanding beyond a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um probably it's been used against Cameron at least once and is more imaginative that toff.Genisock2 (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not sure not seen anything pre early 90s yet. The times doesn't appear to have used it between 1785 and 1985.Geni 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking at microfish at a library? The internet wasn't widely used until 1988. Turlo Lomon (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No but there is a digital archive of the times that covers those dates.Geni 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without prejudice to the rest of your argument, you're seriously misunderstanding the second guideline you link to. 86.44.29.244 (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC) stricken, i have serious reading problems[reply]
  • Aside from the fact that PiracyFundsTerrorism misunderstood "Notability is not temporary", I found it funny that he is trying to tie it with Wikipedia:Crystal Ball to create a position about "future notability". Seems to me his position is in itself a speculation that says "the phrase could have no future notability". --Voidvector (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get the issue here. "probably become the most memorable phrase of this election" is quite clearly not a good argument to keep, that's the point he was trying to make I believe. MickMacNee (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain what exactly I misunderstood. "Articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future" directly disputes the statement that we should keep the article because it will probably become famous in relation to this election, which is exactly the kind of speculation that doesn't belong on here. Regarding "future notability", I specifically said that it may become notable in the future, in which case it would be undeleted. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well keep. DS (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Reynolds[edit]

Lindsey Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability (check WP:FICT and WP:SOAPS). No media coverage, no third-party references, no real world information. A minor fictional character who made a short appearance in a show. Magioladitis (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that the character appeared for only some weeks in a long-running soap opera where hundreds of character's appear? Do we really expect anything more than ((plot)) in this article? We could think of converting to a redirect to List of Shortland Street characters in order to preserve edit history. But is it worth? The secondary source provided is not really important. If the character was a person I would say that "Wikipedia is not a memorial site" (per WP:MEMORIAL). -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - I don't understand why you're invoking Wikipedia:Featured Pictures. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. henrik•talk 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claddagh Ring pub[edit]

Claddagh Ring pub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only sign of notability is the Shine Corporate 'Best Customer Experience' Award in 2008. I haven't been able to quickly find information on the award. Other than that, I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa McCormick (radio presenter)[edit]

Lisa McCormick (radio presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable radio presenter who fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Already been CSDed at least once, but keeps getting recreated and last CSD declined, so bringing to AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Super Sluggers Collectible Cards[edit]

Mario Super Sluggers Collectible Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is simply an online game to promote the newest Mario baseball video game. This is an unacceptable split off of Mario Super Sluggers for various reasons. The article is simply a game guide at best, and any relevant content can be fit in a few paragraphs at best on the main article. I've tried explaining this to the editors involved: but they refuse to listen. I've tried redirecting this to the main article, and it just gets reverted. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true - see also Where's the beef?, for example. But I concur that there is no independent notability here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above poster, RobJ1981 is wrong. This information is valuable to hundreds if not thounds of children and adults around the world. He also stated Gamefaqs was not reliable, which I disagree with, people can say that Wikipedia is not reliable in the same manner. Once people who care post good and correct information, it is up to the user to consider if it is reliable or not. This article is not a game guide, it is a resource to a collectible card game from Mario Super Sluggers. Not the/and/or video game, but something else entirely. My question is why does he care so much about this page? does he own it? does he need it? he should just lay off and find some others to harrase. Thank you, Daddio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.185.90 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC) — 69.139.185.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Krutz[edit]

David Krutz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Google search turns up nothing. Brougham96 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geneablog[edit]

Geneablog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism with few notable hits that aren't self-titled so-called geneablogs, most serious Genealogists with blogs call them blogs, not geneablogs. Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak , for example, simply used a blogspot account for a while, calling it her blog. ThuranX (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farey search[edit]

Farey search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedically written article consisting primarily of long pieces of computer implementation, describing a non-notable search algorithm whose title gets no hits in Google scholar. The article was previously prodded, but the prod was removed by an anonymous IP user. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Hurley[edit]

David Hurley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual member of King's Singers. No independent notability under WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep/no consensus by Lifebaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)[5][6]. Daniel (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meganekko[edit]

Uncited since March 2007, and by looking at the talk page it's clear that nothing has happened that might improve the situation since. As it stands, I can't even verify the article's title is correct (I get more hits when searching for an alternative spelling), let alone the content, which is completely uncited. Shinobu (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm new to nominating articles for deleting. Do I have to ((subst:adw|Meganekko)) ~~~~ all authors manually, or just the first, or can this be botted or otherwise made easier in some fashion? Shinobu (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Deep[edit]

Bone Deep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is too forward looking and speculative at this time, fails WP:CRYSTAL in the very worst of ways. JBsupreme (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SNES Game Maker[edit]

The SNES Game Maker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Product is currently non-notable. Thought about speedying under a7 but it seems to fall under software category than company/croup Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should say that I did nominate it for speedy but then thought of the possible distinction and replaced it with the AFD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
switch to strong delete and salt per creator's attempt to buy Wikipedia on article talk page, see User_talk:Roberttheman2008#Talk:The_SNES_game_maker and because this is the third try at deletion. A rather sad attempt at spamming the 'pedia. So unable to meet notability and verifiability that it must use Wikipedia for promotion. Dlohcierekim 13:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You *should* follow the links offered here and read about Wikipedia's policies. Further attempts to recreate an article if deleted through this AfD process would result in speedy deletion. Equendil Talk 05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment-- this is user's second !vote. He is AKA "Roberttheman2008". See above. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14
05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: (to Roberttheman2008) Slight clarification on the above: Recreating a previously deleted article will cause the article to be speedy-deleted IF the new article does not address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place. If it's deleted now, and the subject of the article later becomes notable and you can provide reliable, sourced information establishing its notability, it will not be speedy-deleted again. At that time, a new AfD review would be called for if someone wanted to have the article deleted again. Conversely, re-creating a deleted article just for the sake of doing so will not only get it CSD'd, but it may get you blocked for disruptive behavior. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the subject of the article should become notable in the future it would be best if the article were re-created in user space, then a WP:DRV filed for others to discuss whether it actually meets the notability issues discussed during the deletion. Corvus cornixtalk 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm just going by what CSD G4 says - that gives a provision for improving the content in place. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé's untitled third studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Beyoncé's untitled third studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums in that the only confirmed details are the release date and the titles of a couple of songs. Nothing else that can be reliably said about it at present. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and the arguments at Wikipedia:HAMMER without prejudice for recreation nearer to the time of release. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotheology[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Astrotheology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page, previously deleted as being non-notable, has been recreated. The page as it stands is no more than a dictionary definition. I can only find two sources that directly relate to the subject -- a dictionary definition and the one Derham book cited. I see no reason to think that the article as it now stands is any more likely to be sourced than it was back in June. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Arthur Ray[edit]

AfDs for this article:
James Arthur Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. User:Mywikieditor2007 tried to afd this but didn't do it right. No vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still waiting for the original nom (whom I've notified) to say why they think the page should be deleted. If they don't respond, I'll just close this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, two previous james ray pages were deleted as vanity pages, one was even marked for speedy deletion - last year i don't know if the circumstances have changed that his page is not considered a vanity one. Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is it a thinly veiled ad? It looks fairly neutral in tone to me, it's not written in a promotional tone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • for example the 'harmonic wealth weekend' Harmonic Wealth Weekend

Ray has become known in the media and press for talking about “Harmonic Wealth”. This focuses on teaching individuals to create wealth in all areas of their lives: financially, relationally, mentally, physically and spiritually. He claims that his two-day, transformational event helps participants achieve more harmony in all areas of their life. Ray has been known in the media and press? then it goes on the soft sell the harmonic wealth weekend, which, presumably is an expensive seminar. Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also, the article reads like a vanity page/advertisement Theserialcomma (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Christian Medical and Dental Association[edit]

International Christian Medical and Dental Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a group for doctors and dentists who are Christians. Nice, but not important as far as I can tell. No independent sources. A few thousand ghits, most of which appear to be blogs and social networking sites. External links make up much of the content and without the internal and external links it would be a very short article indeed. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


:Delete Not Notable - loose group of people Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008 Indef-Blocked as sock puppet LegoKontribsTalkM 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fog Lane Park[edit]

Fog Lane Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to establish the notability of what appears to be an unremarkable public park. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be curious to know what information there is in this article that you believe ought to be merged with any other article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beleive the entire (short text) could conveniently be added to an article on the locality. Peterkingiron (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy's girl fetish[edit]

Daddy's girl fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Attempts at finding reliable sources have failed, and reliable sources are unlikely to exist given the neologistic, marginal, idiosyncratic and sexual nature of the subject. By the same token; the subject's notability is absent, and therefore the article is unable to avoid the function of "advocacy". Redblueball (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— James Cantor (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire fetish[edit]

Vampire fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Attempts at finding reliable sources have failed, and reliable sources are unlikely to exist given the neologistic, marginal, idiosyncratic and sexual nature of the subject. By the same token; the subject's notability is absent, and therefore the article is unable to avoid the function of "advocacy". Redblueball (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Vampires as a subconscious sexual metaphor is something that has been explored in both pop writing and more serious works, but I'm not sure if that warrants this as a separate article from 'vampire'. 129.89.68.62 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanden Bergh, R. L., & Kelly, J. F. (1964). Vampirism: A review with new observations. Archives of General Psychiatry, 11, 543-547.
Prins, H. (1985). Vampirism—A clinical condition. British Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 666-668.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. henrik•talk 05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese profanity[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Portuguese profanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a list of semi-notable at best obscene phrases. It is entirely unsourced, consists mainly of original research, violates our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, and our Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information policy. Therefore it should be deleted from Wikipedia, with the option of giving it to Wikiquote or Wiktionary proposed to those projects. MBisanz talk 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amuso[edit]

Amuso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn website PongPingKong (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - newsworthy - covered by The Guardian (UK National Newspaper) in this article and industry leading blog Mashable in this article. Nickentrepreneur (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.77.59 (talk) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caselex[edit]

Caselex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed PROD. Not quite /blatant/ advertising, but pretty damned close. Plus dubious notability. 9Nak (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page updated to counter arguments for deletion. Caselex is a high impact service, see award won in 2008 and classification provided by epractice.eu listed under sources. The alliance that has built and supported the service is substantial, however if you are not into European law it may be hard to grasp the value and contribution of Caselex. However the pure fact that the service is supported by the European Commission represents a ground to include the service. The included sources demonstrate the points made in the article. Ellenbeate (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmy[edit]

Itsmy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn website PongPingKong (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - It's been covered by the Washington Post, the inquirer, etc. 22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 00:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan X. Cote[edit]

Jonathan X. Cote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod by anon. A local councillor, nothing more nothing less. The article makes no claims as to meeting WP:BIO and there are no obviously available to sources to establish a claim. Nuttah (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-nuclear future[edit]

Non-nuclear_future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

Article gives the views of "energy analysts" who are only anti-nuclear, a clear POV fork. (This is I believe my first afd nomination, so bear with me.) Simesa (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article while merging the various pro/anti-nuclear debates into one section in Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power. This article represents a fork of that section. Simesa (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predictive Index[edit]

Predictive Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a wholesale copyvio from CPA Journal Online, reads like an advert, has no sources (been tagged for a year) and is a generally substandard article. I think its time for it to be put out of its misery. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recockless[edit]

Recockless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Middle School (San Francisco)[edit]

Roosevelt Middle School (San Francisco) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete for non-notability. I would argue that Middle Schools, being there are so many, are inherently non-notable. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V.I.L.A: The Chronicles - Marble (film)[edit]

V.I.L.A: The Chronicles - Marble (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertisement for film not yet made, by non-notable director. VerticalDrop (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software Freedom Day Hong Kong[edit]

Software Freedom Day Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Software Freedom Day is notable, celebration by a little team in Hong Kong is not. Timurite (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted. Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sega X[edit]

Sega X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page has been speedily deleted three times now. Its a yet to be released Sega emulator with no assertion of notability whatsoever. Hopefully this can be deleted and salted to prevent recreation. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G DATA AntiVirus[edit]

G DATA AntiVirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Similar to SuperAntiSpyware, the software makes no assertion of notability and is nothing more than an advertising vehicle for the company. seicer | talk | contribs 16:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: An encyclopedia should have as much information as possible, especially if the information is correct. But since you have no idea of what an Encyclopedia is, and since the administrators are so stupid to listen to your baby cries, then do what you want and Screw you. [unsigned comment by Emperordarius 03:54, 13 September 2008]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, or at least insufficient consensus to delete. NawlinWiki 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meow Wars[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Meow Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This did somehow manage to survive a previous AfD, mainly, it seems, on the strength of ILIKEIT, IREMEMBERIT, ITSFUNNY, and similar (non)arguments to keep. Unfortunately, while the article is amusing, there's no reliable source material available about this. "Sources" cited include a Google Groups search, alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead (you can't make that one up!), more Google Groups searches, and some personal-recollection essays not published or fact-checked by any reputable publication. I remember this whole thing too. Yes, it was funny, yes it fires up the nostalgia factor a bit, yes, I got a chuckle out of reading it. But it belongs on a net nostalgia website, not Wikipedia, because we're effectively putting together an article completely out of synthesis and interpretation of primary sources here. That's original research and publication of original thought. Since there are no secondary sources, this problem is unfixable, and the article should be deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burgerless burger[edit]

Burgerless burger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not needed, not referenced, and the article it self does not make sense. A burger does not automatically mean meat, a burger is a patty that cane me made from non-meat sources, so saying a burgerless burger and then saying it has a non-meat patty in it does not make sense. Plus there is already Veggie burger, if anything delete the article and merge with that one. Sugarcubez (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close, never mind, withdrawing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of progressive rock supergroups[edit]

List of progressive rock supergroups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of grunge supergroups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Overly narrow criterion for a list. No really clear definition as to what progressive rock constitutes for the former, no sources for either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That seems to be a reason for creating some other articles, not a reason to delete these two. Given the length of these two articles, a List of supergroups would be unwieldy anyway. Lists of supergroups in other genres might be desirable (List of punk supergroups anyone?) and having these two lists isn't stopping those being created. Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I am willing to userfy for any editor interested in merging some of this content to other articles, provided such editor agrees to maintain GFDL attribution, which would require undeleting the history of this page and referencing it in the edit summary when merging content. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hymers[edit]

Ben Hymers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Where to begin? The subject fails the notability criteria (in general as well as WP:ENTERTAINER), verifiability, and WP:NOTINHERITED (in an admittedly weird reading of it maybe). Article has no assertion of importance/significance that I could see and it was tagged for speedy as such (a tag which the author removed in direct contravention of the advice provided in the tag). The show he was involved in may in fact be notable but, that does not confer notability to him, nor has he been covered in any significant form by reliable 3rd party sources Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the IMDB proves the notability of the programme, and the individual's (Ben Hymers') notability within said programme. The belief is held that such notability is not in contradiction to WP:BIO. Thankyou. Thomwilkinson (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as blatant spam.  – iridescent 18:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ovaflo[edit]

Ovaflo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This went from being a very short entry about non-notable software to almost blatant advertising. TN‑X-Man 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of humanoid and synthetic Combine in Half-Life 2[edit]

List of humanoid and synthetic Combine in Half-Life 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article also fails both WP:N and WP:NOT just as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combine Forces. See WP:SNOW.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is designed exactly the same way and has exactly the same problems as the former:

List of Combine non-combat technology in Half-Life 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuZemike (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as overturned non-admin snowball keep of previous AfD. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Smackdown[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Movie Smackdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Most of the discussion of the page is written as an advertisement for the website. For example, the first sentence of "Concept" states "The Movie Smackdown concept is based on the premise that to succeed in the Internet age, film reviews need to be more fun and more surprising. They need to be, whenever possible, as entertaining as the films they seek to criticize or praise".

A large chunk of this page has very little to do with the website itself. For example, "Evolution (and Revolution) in Film Criticism" has nothing to do with Move Smackdown itself. Rather, it just comes across as an essay on film criticism in itself.

This was nominated for deletion before (obviously). One of the "Keep Votes" (User:CineTex) is obviously a single-purpose account: all four of his edits deal with Movie Smackdown, and his "Keep" vote was a large impassioned essay. Another "Keep" vote, from User:Walkingbillboard, also made all of his edits on the deletion page. Yet another "Keep" vote, from User:Pusster1 made his sole edit on this page. Another Keep Edit, User:Chickflix made their first edit on this page, and the rest of their edits were on the page for Bryce Zabel, the creator of this website. Did anyone look into this at all when making their consensus? CyberGhostface (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon-X[edit]

Pokemon-X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article, the web comic Pokémon-X, doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant an article. The page is badly written, and badly laid out, as well as most of the work being done by the comic's author themselves (as user ReconDye). It does not have a neutral point of view, nor any cited sources. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respiration of human / mammal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Respiration of human / mammal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant to respiratory system, which is of significantly higher quality. Title is unlikely search term, so keeping it as a redirect seems useless. Huon (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman, Texas bus accident[edit]

Sherman, Texas bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable bus accident. This article was written shortly after the accident when it was still in the news but Wikipedia is not a news source and it should have been deleted back then. Creating articles about every road accident that gets into the news would not be a worthwhile venture for Wikipedia. And who, outside of the area that it happened in, actually remembers this accident now? Notability is not temporary. Millionsandbillions (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it still looks like a WP:NOTNEWS violation to me. The debate on seatbelts in buses has been on and off for decades so I can't agree that this is anymore significant than other crashes based on that alone. The overseas news coverage doesn't make it anymore notable than news coverage in the states of americans dieing in a bus crash in germany would make that crash notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As well, the fallout from the crash has already begun. See these stories: Feds nix new bus company licenses after crash. Sherman crash angers those fighting for bus reforms. Activists say belts, special glass can save lives; industry defends standards --Eastmain (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And note that the crash was covered by media outside Texas, including the International Herald Tribune and The Times of India. --Eastmain (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not done relooking but, I have to say that just because news is covered internationally doesn't mean that it still isn't news in wikipedia sense. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still haven't finished but, other stuff needs deleting isn't a valid rationale to keep. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) the difference is in rarity of occurance (just as a beginning). I fail to see what point you are trying to make with the reference to accidents in Africa or South America? Would you mind elaborating?Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Sri Lanka incident was a terrorist bus bombing campaign. How can you compare the two? [13] Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political corpse[edit]

Political corpse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologisms have no place in Wikipedia. Martintg (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it has fewer Google hits than "random terms" Martintg (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Although the delete votes did not far exceed the keeps, none of the Keep rationales provided a convincing policy justification. For instance, one of the keep voters said "There is a huge universe created by Angie Sage in the Septimus Heap series and fans are willing to read all the information." Factors that Keep voters should have addressed were WP:PLOT, which is part of policy, and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which is an essay but has a lot of influence. The Times Online article cited in the AfD discussion clearly shows that the Septimus Heap series of books is notable, and it is well-justified to have an article on the series, which is what Septimus Heap is. But there was no evidence provided that the Septimus Heap *character* has been addressed and commented on by reliable sources. I am willing to userfy the article for anyone who believes they will be able to add sources and improve the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Septimus Heap (character)[edit]

Septimus Heap (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article on a fictional character that does note cite notability UltraMagnus (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Snorri Snorrelssen because it is unreferenced and fails both Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (under Elements of fiction) and Wikipedia:Plot. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a little late to add new articles to this nom. Meanwhile, Marcia Overstrand and Jenna Heap have been created, and I think it's best to open a new AfD for the three of them. – sgeureka t•c 09:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with sgeureka's reasoning and boldly followed his suggestion, moving Snorri Snorrelssen to WP:Articles for deletion/Jenna Heap with the other newly created pages with exactly the same problems. Huon (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have already put in a !vote above. – sgeureka t•c 08:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's good now, so why delete? --RoryReloaded (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is good now? Double-voting is never accepted, and the article hasn't improved at all (no sources or analysis were added). – sgeureka t•c 09:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually look, he has triple voted....--UltraMagnus (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't even notice... – sgeureka t•c 09:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fullmetal Fantasy[edit]

Fullmetal Fantasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a Fancruft/Vanity article, unsourced since July 2007, few pages link to the article, mostly Wikiproject links. I don't think this has gotten to the notability level of the Troops fanfilm as well. 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for being "Old School," but I saw nothing in the general deletion instructions that disallowed noting "vanity" in the nomination. Skipping that point, I did normal Google and Yahoo searches: this was one result. It would seem that unless the film as about Iron Kingdoms or Final Fantasy (oddly enough, it was via a mistype in a Final Fantasy search on Wikipedia that showed me this article), it has already failed the Notability guideline as I don't see any "verifiable" third party articles (or is buried so far into the search results or under an obscure search parameter/words). It also appears to be a pure fancruft article given the tone of the article and the Trivia section. Also, it was tagged in July 2007; there is a line when you can only give so much before deletion is the only option. Seeing it's September 2008, whomever had an interest in the article had a good year to clean it up with an extra 2 months thrown in for being unoticed. I tried to at least attempt to salvage the article, but as stated above, to meet current Wikipedia guidelines, it failed.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. —Reedy 09:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burwell village college[edit]

Burwell village college (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Some essay by a (presumably) former student. Not notable,at least not in this state. Fireaxe888 (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 04:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of beloniform fishes[edit]

Gallery of beloniform fishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested (a year and a half ago). Page is just a gallery, which violates WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a photograph gallery. seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual gallery of Adelidae[edit]

Visual gallery of Adelidae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This page is nothing but a collection of images, which violates WP:NOT. If it would be expanded to be truly an identification guide (which hasn't been done in its first year of existence), then it would still violate WP:NOT a how-to guide, and it would be at the wrong title anyway. The page as it stands is not an article and can (with its current title) never be an acceptable wikipedia page. Also nominated:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. BJTalk 19:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acland Hospital[edit]

Acland Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hospitals are no different from organizations they must pass WP:CORP. Nothing I can find anywhere gives this hospital notability. It can not be called notable because of those it was founded in memory of because notability is not inherited. (Although a mention in that persons bio may be appropriate. Being sold also does not create notability....I mean you have to be kidding! benjicharlton (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete AS per my nomination... benjicharlton (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep reviewed my discussion based on the new information added to the article
  • Actually its not even "run of the mill"...it's closed.....benjicharlton (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Clearly not notable as a hospital. (Changed vote below.) Not convincingly notable as Acland Hospital building. A list of works by the architect belongs in and is in the article on the architect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? I hope you don't mind me asking. Brilliantine (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As "Sarah Acland Home for Nurses" - in Bristol Times And Mirror, April 19, 1897.
Canada Free Press, November 16, 2004.
Some additional book sources "Sarah Acland Home for Nurses", "Acland Hospital", "Acland Nursing Home", "Acland Home", hospital
The fact that there is an entry in The Encyclopedia of Oxford is also compelling.
There is enough info there in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to establish notability, not to mention also enough to get this article up to WP:GA status. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Encyclopedia entry I would say is not at all compelling. It has thousands and thousands of entries for what is essentially a pretty small city. Pretty much every street would be notable by that standard. I am still looking at the other sources, as Google Books is being very slow today. Brilliantine (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good, keep us posted. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is unimportant now, I hope, since Cirt has updated the article, but Brilliantine's description of The Oxford Encyclopaedia is at odds with what the review in The Oxford Review of Education 16 (1990), 126 says "The Encyclopaedia comprises some 1000 entries" (accessible via JSTOR). Since these are on institutions, places and people as well as buildings, it ought not to be surprising that Oxford has more than a thousand notable subjects. N p holmes (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ningauble (talk · contribs), most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well done Cirt, thank you for all your interesting research. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks, it was a fun little expansion project. It was most interesting in the course of research to learn that George V of the United Kingdom officially opened the new buildings of the facility on May 12, 1879. Cirt (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I extended the debate for a second time to allow time for editors requested to look at this from WP:WPVA. This has happened and they have endorsed the deletion, as failing wikipedia's requirements regarding a combination of WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Please note this is not a vote, but a debate related to policy interpreted by informed consensus. Editors whose only or main contributions to the encylopedia are to this debate or the article concerned carry very little weight compared with established editors. See also WP:OSE. Ty 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis St. Lewis[edit]

Louis St. Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist. Google search returns only local mentions, no national coverage or other reason for WP:N. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RMHED (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ty 08:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After the unsigned IP address posted their response below, I noticed that the subject had altered his web page from [15] to [16], removing the Rhodes Scholar bs that I mentioned above. This continuing pattern of deception is problematic. — CactusWriter | needles 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I find the problem with this entry to be the fact that several of the statements deal with publications that predate google or being able to be easily referenced. The artist does indeed seem to be represented by galleries in California ( under the name Louis St.Louis) as well as New Orleans and the Carolina's and to possess a extensive exhibition record and notable critical references such as ArtForum and ArtPapers. With half of his career in the 80's and early 90's it comes as no surprise that the facts are hard to pin down. The reference to the Ogden Museum not having the artist listed on it's website should not neccissarily negate his being in the collection, and it seems that this article is at the least in need of paring down and cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Second vote. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do get that his work was auctioned by the Ogden at a fundraiser (home page search), but that is not much help re notability. What is the link to the Florence list? Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's this [17]. Appallingly designed and I'm not sure what it's authority is, but probably legit. No sign of the artist.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which year did the artist participate in the Florence Biennale?--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Biennale website. I did find that auction at Ogden mentioning St. Lewis, but the article explicitly claims his works are part of their collection. I just mailed the registrar of Ogden; he should know if the Art Search is correct or if they do have some work of St. Lewis. Huon (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find those pages before - he's not there under LE LO SA or ST, so changing to delete above; we seem to have a merry prankster on our hands. What a lot of Lopez's though. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the Ogden registrar replied that their collection records are not complete online; St. Lewis is represented in the Ogden collection by two paintings, Self-Portrait as a Dandy and The Prophecy. Now we'd only need a reliable source, something I found extremely difficult to obtain when St. Lewis is concerned. Huon (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - do people think this, & the other (smaller?) museum collections mentioned in the article are enough for notability? Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking on that, Huon. It provides a confirmation to a point all of us felt could be made -- the subject would probably pass the criteria for notability. However, we are still left with the original problem of WP:SOURCES and verifiability. WP:BLP guidelines are clear that biographies of living persons must err on the side of caution. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. (emphasis is WP's); and ...badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted. (emphasis is mine). The discovery of so much dubious, if not blatantly false, information about St. Lewis is still problematic. So the question remains: What improves WP's standing more -- the inclusion of a North Carolina contemporary artist of minor notability, or the lack of a self-promoter with an apparent desire to create his own mythology? If kept, the article needs to be gutted, and then will need to be carefully watched to prevent further BLP violations. — CactusWriter | needles 19:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Bäckman[edit]

Johan Bäckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails the notability criteria, with references to four primary sources (all Estonian press publications) reporting the same single event, which was an interview where he makes some controversial assertion about Estonia while promoting his unpublished book "The Bronze Soldier". Martintg (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you follow the ISBN links in the article you can easily see that the books are not self-published. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
self-published sources have a specific meaning on WP, it has nothing much to do with following the ISBN numbers but only if the books are written by the guy or are those written about the guy, that what determines WP:Notability. Currently the only secondary sources about the guy provided in the article, once more, are about his statement in printed press regarding possible future of Republic of Estonia. There are no secondary published sources provided that would cover his notability otherwise. Since Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources, once more, the notability of the guy according to the sources provided lies only on his statement about "10 years left for Estonia"--Termer (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His interview still is a single event which is the sum total to his claim to notability. Are you suggesting you created this article so that his books could be evaluated as being more reliable than they would normally be? In other words, you are saying that one purpose in creating this article was to support the placement of fringe theories by a "historian" into various articles? Martintg (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, 17-year-old fanfic author, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Brown (author)[edit]

Jamie Brown (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article beginning "a little-known..." is never good notability-wise. This would appear to be a writer of fan fiction - straight under our notability radar. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 08:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Any subsequent discussion about merging to Champagne socialist, chattering classes, liberal elite, etc is not something for AFD to determine, although it strikes me as a good idea worth exploring. fish&karate 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chardonnay socialist[edit]

Chardonnay socialist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauche caviar‎

This is an unsourced dictionary definition, and as we all know Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merger was proposed to Liberal elite but the consensus was to oppose the merger - see Talk:Liberal elite#Multi mergers to this article (Discussion closed - No changes being made) --Matilda talk 05:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Liberal elite would not work too well for this article, which is Australian and the Liberals are the right wing party. chattering classes might work for a lot of these articles, but perhaps not all. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Liberals are not liberal in the worldwide sense. Timeshift (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer slightly more than one-sentence mentions. All they offer is proof that the term is in use and of its meaning. They don't offer enough information to give anything more than a dictionary definition with a bit of background. What would be useful would be articles or substantial article sections on the phrase itself, or more in-depth scholarly discussion of the phrase. I still think it would be better transwikied. Brilliantine (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the quotes that I embodied in the citations - in particular Mark Rolfe's article (noting that the title refers to wine) - and perhaps you would like to read the 30 odd pages and you would discover that it is a substantial article that deals with the phrase and its use in more than a passing mention. Once again AfD is not a call for cleanup , it is a debate as to whether the article should exist - are there sources to support the development of an article - I believe there are. It may be better that we have one article but I do not know if that can be done without breaching the policy on no original research. --Matilda talk 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Hm, the article is a little more expansive than the quotes suggest at first glance. I'm not sure if there is enough meat here for a dedicated article though. One article for the lot of these ad hominems would certainly be better, I think. Brilliantine (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that one article would be better - but as I noted above, there was no consensus to merge to Liberal elite - see Talk:Liberal elite#Multi mergers to this article (Discussion closed - No changes being made) . Then there is the qquestion of creating such an article without resorting to Original research and or breaching WP:SYNTH. Possibly could be done but AfD is a distraction. Moreover at the very least this and other related terms should be a redirect to that grouping ad hominem article.
In French the grouping article would be fr:gauche caviar and in German it would be Toskana-Fraktion, in the Netherlands Neo-gauchisme, in Sweden Rödvinsvänster.
The grouping is pejorative political terms currently a red link and perhaps deservedly so - however, I am not sure that the category Category:Political metaphors referring to people is quite on the mark - the Swedes do it better with sv:Kategori:Pejorativa politiska termer . Note at Champagne socialist - a larger list of international terms is provided. Our problem , compared with our other-langauge colleagues, is that there are many varieties of English and hence one person's champagne socialist, is another's chardonnay socialist, or limousine liberal - and there are possibly other terms - what does the Indian press in English use a similar term?
How do we create "one article for the lot of these ad hominems" ?--Matilda talk 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think chattering classes would be the natural title (especially since that article is extremely underdeveloped). but others may have different opinions. Brilliantine (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed chattering classes above but as BDuke observes: it "might work for a lot of these articles, but perhaps not all". I think the best fit is Champagne socialist. The term Chardonnay socialist is clearly linked. I suspect Gauche caviar is too given the timing of its creation and use. Perhaps the book by Laurent Joffrin might help to verify. The article in the Daily Telegraph [ http://www.nysun.com/foreign/french-socialist-is-accused-of-failing-to-pay-her/46935/ ] asserts it is the French equivalent. --Matilda talk 23:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sword and crown (module)[edit]

Sword and crown (module) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article topics should be notable. However, it appears that Sword and crown as a module has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Suntag (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collision (physical attack)[edit]

Collision (physical attack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article seems unwarranted, hardly a disambiguation page, scanty defintions, no sources, poor potential for anything useful. Article was previously PROD'ed, otherwise I would have simply done that now. meco (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to ear shaping as a non-admin editorial action. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ear Pointing[edit]

Ear Pointing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable variety of cosmetic surgery. Lacks sources. - Icewedge (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Nassim Haramein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject failsnotability guidelines for academics and people in general. Since the first time this was AfDed, several editors have made efforts to find reliable, 3rd party sources, and none could be found. Basically all there is on this guy are primary sources (his organization's website, various youtube videos, some discussion forum posts). The first AfD was closed as "Needs cleanup but ... Keep for now," but unfortunately without secondary sources the article remain a mess, and will probably stay that way. Yilloslime (t) 06:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a rejoinder, I think somebody should have a critical look at the related article on Elizabeth Rauscher, too. --Crusio (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment publishing papers is insufficient to establish notability; they need to be widely cited and/or attract attention in other ways. The web site you link to ("The Resonance Project", with "testimonials") is not effective in this regard: looking at their "personnel page" we see that Haramanian is first on the list. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please allow me to respond to the above comment from Avsav, because I think it is illustrative of how some work fails to pass for legitimate scholarship. Several points need rebuttal: (1) "Obviously such a paper would have fundamental classical mechanics equations discussing torque and angular velocity..." – This is patently false. Research papers rarely, if ever will repeat well-known equations, but instead will cite other sources for such equations, usually a standard text in the field. Referees immediately flag this sort of thing in any submitted papers (I myself have done so), precisely because the equations are well-known and because journals cannot afford the column-inches to repeat established knowledge. With all due respect, this assertion suggests the commenter does not really understand how research is vetted and published. (2) "As for the comment on ergs, maybe the editor should go back to undergrad school. Haramein’s paper expresses torque in dyne-cm where 1 dyne-cm = 1 erg". This issue is much more serious and reflects a basic ignorance of mechanics. Specifically, torque is a vector entity, having units of force*distance (dyne-cm, if you like). While energy also has the same kind of units, it is a scalar product. So, for example, a torque displaced through a unitless rotation would then give you energy, and would only then have units of ergs. I'll refer the commenter to Wikipedia's own page on this point, which gives a good layman's explanation. I'm afraid this discussion gives further weight toward deletion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope I will be indulged one last response on this entry. Avsav is clearly very passionate about this article, which I think is commendable. I doubt that anyone in this forum has any intention of taking up mistakes in this paper with the authors. That job will fall to future referees, should the paper ever get submitted to a mainstream physics journal. (The paper is highly relevant to the debate on this article, because the subject's claim to notability appears to rest entirely upon the results presented in it.) I do not know how Avsav proposes to speak for the authors regarding their intent on pp 162. The paper says "The units of torque are dyne-cm or gm cm^2 / sec^2 = ergs". The context is very clear – the authors believe that torque can be expressed in units of energy. Avsav concurs, according to a comment above: "where 1 ft-lb of torque = 1.3558 x 10^7 ergs". No amount of argument will make this true. I think what is now established is that this paper has fundamental problems and is unlikely to ever be submitted to the physics community for proper scrutiny. Consequently, I don't see that the subject of the article has any real notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6 weeks is quite enough to add some sources if there were any sources to add. Moreover, looking at the previous AfD, the closing admin's decision clearly went against the consensus for deletion. I am surprised that it was not taken to DRV back then. There were two delete, two weak delete !votes, plus the nominator's delete !vote and one keep !vote. Even a dedicated inclusionist like DGG !voted delete back then and that is saying something. The only keep vote was increadibly weak in terms of giving any kind of a policy-based reason for a keep argument. To have a few or even a lot papers published in peer-reviwed journals was never considered enough for passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. To pass WP:PROF one basically needs to demonstrate either evidence of high citability of Haramein's research in publications of other scientists or a significant number of papers where his work is discussed in detail. For passing WP:BIO one would have to show some substantial coverage of him personally by independent reliable sources. None of this was available then and none is available now. Nsk92 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To second Nsk93, I don't think this is a case of if-only-editors-would-give-it-more-time, but rather a case of there-simply-aren't-any-secondary-sources. Six weeks is plenty of time, and it's been tagged with ((notability|academics)) for the last 4+ of them. In those 6 weeks, 80+ edits have been made to the article by 9 distinct editors (excluding bots and IPs); and with 110+ edits by 10 separate editors (not counting bots and IPs), the talk page has grown by 70,000 bytes. On top of that, threads have been started on the talk pages of two separate admins. (1&2). A strong, good faith effort has clearly been made to salvage this article. Simply put: without sources, dozens of editors could put months of work into the article and the same problems would remain. This is exactly why WP requires that the subject of a BLP "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject"Yilloslime (t) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) 03:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]
since notability is the criterion for inclusion for a bio on wikipedia, your 'weak keep' should probably be a 'weak delete'. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd let Ace speak for himself about what conclusion his arguments come to. If someone thinks an article that he thinks might almost make the guidelines is a keep, there's nothing wrong with him saying so. DGG (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a big deal, its just a borderline spam article probably presented by people involved with the subject, who were using wikipedia to sell DVD's. The last AfD should have ended in delete, and this one certainly will.Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

why?He's ideias deserver's a space! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.63.137.155 (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blaine Harbor Marina[edit]

Blaine Harbor Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete (A1) (Non-admin closure). MuZemike (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlap High School[edit]

Dunlap High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article created today, about a school. Doesn't look like it's very notable. Matt (Talk) 06:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day New York[edit]

Good Day New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No more notable than Good Day Tampa Bay which was AFD'd months ago. Microremote (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided above refer specifically to the New York one. Probably someone should stick them in the article. I might do later if I have time, but this isn't my area of expertise at all - I'd be more comfortable with someone who knows anything about US TV doing it. Brilliantine (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that multiple full-length New York Times articles are enough to establish notability - at least two of them are whole articles on the programme and its history. Brilliantine (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources discusses how its success led to several similar shows being started elsewhere in the country. In any case, local newspapers (if you are going to call the NYT that) are still reliable sources, the depth of coverage is quite good, and in the absence of any specific notability guideline for news shows, I think it is fairly clear that the article subject passes WP:GNG. Brilliantine (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody disputes that the New York Times is a reliable source. But I am going to call it a "local newspaper" as far as its section that's called "NY/region" [26], in order to balance the "It's in the New York Times, therefore it must be notable" argument. As all Times readers know, it contains "all the news that's fit to print", and fitness and notability are different concepts. WNYW is inherently notable, there being a policy on that, whether it's watched outside of the northeast USA or not; but a program on WNYW isn't entitled to the same pass. I've yet to see anything that says that a television show seen on one station is, per se, notable. Otherwise, articles about 18 Action News in Elmira would be automatic keepers. I know that you cited something from the publication Broadcasting and Cable, though it seems to be about the station's anchor rather than about the tation itself. Mandsford (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This crystal ball is sensing that the album non-notable and pre-mature. No reliable sources or much context,. seicer | talk | contribs 02:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homesick (album)[edit]

Homesick (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by author without improvement. Prod reason: "WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV violations, as well as WP:V." Cliff smith talk 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The crystal ball is sensing that the article is a few years premature, and is pure speculation at best. seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Presidential Election[edit]

2012 Presidential Election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing but crystal balling. - Icewedge (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(expansion of rationale) While it seems such articles have been traditionally created a very long time before the election (United States presidential election, 2008 was created back in 2004) we should wait until after this current election as the results will drastically affect nearly everything about the next election. - Icewedge (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patareni[edit]

Patareni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Serious WP:V issues. The band appears to have been around for a long time, with an impressive number of releases; however, without multiple albums on a notable independent label this doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. If sources can be found to establish notability then fair enough, but I've looked and couldn't spy any. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Ok, so I realize no one actually said "redirect", but the "merge" stance below is what swayed me. I don't know the subject matter, I won't be merging anything, but this title will now redirect to the main Puyo Puyo article, specifically, the characters section. The history of this page will be intact, per GFDL, and for mining for information to expand the Puyo Puyo page. Keeper ǀ 76 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harpy (Puyo Puyo)[edit]

Harpy (Puyo Puyo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Side character in a video games series. Considerable amounts of dubious content and zero evidence of any kind of notability. --Leivick (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Deletion is not cleanup, and there is no deadline. Sources have been provided in this discussion to counter the nomination/ sole argument for deletion. Decision accordingly is keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Avalon Collection[edit]

The Avalon Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no reliable sources Jessi1989 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is not notability, it is the lack of reliable secondary sources as per wp:v. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lack of sources is grounds for finding sources. if none can be found then the article should be deleted. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reliable secondary sources are required to verify any information in the article. the issue i have raised is how to verify any of the information in the article without reliable secondary sources. notability is another issue, although still very relevant here. but as a guideline, compared with the wp:v policy, it is of secondary importance. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
good work, but the article needs to be rewritten based soley on information in the secondary sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to take a look at this: deletion is not cleanup. Also, the article doesn't need to be rewritten based solely on information from secondary sources - the book itself is considered a reasonable source for such things as a plot summary, short descriptions of the characters, etc. - as long as there are sources that exist to show that the subject is notable enough for an article. Articles are allowed to be based mainly on secondary sources. (A small but important distinction, I feel.) But, yes, the article really really should be cleaned up. It's in terrible shape. I'll try and polish it up a bit... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I saw the PW items, but would not put notices there in the same category as critical reviews. I missed the KidsReads piece. It only contains plot summary, but I guess it counts towards notability. Audiofile is a good source. I have withdrawn my vote to delete. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PW article about the publication history I thought would be an excellent source for referencing the current section on that topic in the article. :) (And I don't see why it shouldn't count towards notability - things are notable if they're noted, and reviews aren't the only way of noting something...) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly Executive Air Charter[edit]

Dragonfly Executive Air Charter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has a number of google hits, but many simply as company listings and nothing in depth coverage as per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). triwbe (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral + Comment News articles on the company in Western Mail on May 5 2004 as evidenced here [28], June 3 2005 as evidenced here. [29] One mention in South Wales Echo but no proper coverage. This is absolute borderline notability and I can't decide whether it should be kept or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilliantine (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Oak Records[edit]

Burnt Oak Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod deletion. Non notable music label, fails WP:CORP Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep on rotation on a major network meets criteria of WP:Music, and counters the claim by the nominator that the only claim of notability is the MP3 downloads. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical Sun[edit]

Mystical Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without reason. Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Releases not on important labels. Only claim to notability is unreferenced claims of mp3 dowloads that does not make a band notable Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.   jj137 (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W.B.I.[edit]

W.B.I. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC; no albums on notable labels, no press, couldn't even find any reviews. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssal Engine and Tools[edit]

Abyssal Engine and Tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. (Currently) non-notable software / software company - fails WP:CORP. No third-party independent references. Article is almost an advert, and there is a potential COI with the author. CultureDrone (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 16:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live in the three Dimensions[edit]

Live in the three Dimensions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article created for a live album which is a bootleg and not an authorised release from the band according to their official website.link. Article contains falsified information including label and a reference to an Allmusic professional review that doesn't actually exist. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Raumanmeri[edit]

Live at Raumanmeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article created for a live album which is a bootleg and not an authorised release from the band according to their official website.link. Article contains falsified information including label and a reference to an Allmusic professional review that doesn't actually exist. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and Redirect to Data (Star Trek). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Soong Family (Star Trek)[edit]

The Soong Family (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Claims cited to unreliable wiki. (well, if there were a References section). Original research for topics' inclusion. Content is mostly plot summary. No citations to third-party sources to establish notability. Unlikely search term. Quintessential example of well-intentioned but ultimately unencyclopedic content better suited to Memory Alpha or some such. --EEMIV (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You confuse the title and the topic. The particular words used in the title are just a convenient summary. The topic is the group of characters associated with Data's history and my search was a sensible way of identifying sources pertaining to this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The results of your search give no indication as to whether the results actually support the article. All you have provided is a list of sites that happen to mention the terms. Nuttah (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the search indicates numerous authors who discuss the family relationship between these characters. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, which of those source the claim that Ira Graves is the technological grandfather of data? Nuttah (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are three sources which testify to this. The repeated contention that this article contains OR seems to be an unsubstantiated falsehood. No example has been given. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those do. You have two review notes that attempt to make the connection and two contextless excerpts from a novel where the data and graves parts are not connected. Nuttah (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that we disagree upon the facts of the matter. My general point is that there are numerous sources for this which can be readily found and so the article just needs some cleanup not deletion on the spurious grounds of OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "My general point is that there are numerous sources for this", yet you provide none. If these sources are readily available add them to the article. Nuttah (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have provided abundant sources. Adding such details to the article seems pointless when editors such as you refuse to accept them. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No you haven't, you've provided searches that return places where terms appear somewhere. If you provide a source with context I will reconsider my opinion. However, merely saying a book x mentions family, data and lore somewhere within its 200 pages is not providing a source. Not one of the 'sources' you claim from your search mention Data, Graves and family in the same sentence. Nuttah (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source The Computers of Star Trek states In a sense, Graves is Data's grandfather. - an obvious family relationship. Other sources make the same point and so it is no mere fancy. Construing this as OR is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't, the reviewer is assuming that. If it came from the book the Google search would return the page number (as it does for the novel A Time for War, A Time for Peace: The Next Generation #9). Nuttah (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that this is a direct quote which appears in chapter 6, pages 105-126. The nature of this searching is indicative - I am not willing to expend great time and expense upon this while so many editors threaten to delete it. This is why deletion is quite inappropriate - it does not afford proper time for research and improvement over time in a calm manner per WP:IMPERFECT. Redirection to the article Data (Star Trek) would be a better way of putting the matter on hold. There seems to have been no consideration of such options per WP:BEFORE. There is not even a talk page for this article and so going straight to AFD is too impatient. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Laviolette[edit]

Richard Laviolette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 03:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 16:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Martial Arts Academy[edit]

Oxford Martial Arts Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert for a recently created company. Sgroupace (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to I Need Mine. MBisanz talk 01:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What It Do[edit]

What It Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable song by Lil' Flip, fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC#Songs. SRX 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:CSD#G10 as an unsourced negative bio. I know the subject was supposedly dead, but I think it likely that there is an unknown, possible living target for this article. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua tolbert[edit]

Joshua tolbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Suspected hoax. Google turns up nothing of relevance. Brilliantine (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi (Cabbie Talk)[edit]

Taxi (Cabbie Talk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A recent book. Mostly copy & paste of the publisher's adverts. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. BJTalk 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Kerry bogslide[edit]

2008 Kerry bogslide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is clearly a silly article that does not meet any guidelines for a notable event. A natural disaster that destroys no property and kills no people is not notable, even if it does displace a moderately large volume of bog. Dzhastin 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, the whole country is a bit bigger than "the immediate region". I think this just, but only just, fulfils "heavily reported damage", one of the criteria for nationally reported events (which this is). Brilliantine (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean it wasn't natural, or wasn't a disaster? And what difference would it make to notability in either case? Richard Pinch (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damage was estimated at 500000 Euros, according to one of the national press articles. Sounds like property damage to me. Brilliantine (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the estimate to fix the road/bridge. In my note above, I used "property" to mean houses/buildings/"properties". That is to say that, other than having to drive the long way around, there was no major impact to citizens. Certainly when one cmopares the actual material damage, injury and loss of life to (say) the flooding all over Europe recently.Guliolopez (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Yes, it's blatant, but that isn't a valid deletion reason. You may have noticed it from the tone of my earlier comments. Policies contradict each other, and one can include almost anything if one tries hard enough. It's a problem. Brilliantine (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually guys, I'm not so sure of that. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by a simple lack of awareness. I've had some "overlap" with the user who created this article over the years, and I'd be surprised if this was a joke. It's actually perfectly in line with his/her style of editting - focusing as he/she does on creating or editting articles on "current events", pop-culture topics that happen to be hot at any given time, and generally stuff he/she sees on TV. So, to put it simply, I don't think the article creator is pulling the piss. Rather I've never been really sure that they actually fully understood the project. (In terms of WP:WWPIN and WP:RECENTISM) Guliolopez (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, apologies, it is quite an odd article though. Brilliantine (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. I totally agree with that. But have a look at the users history and you'll see what I mean. By way of example, you will note that the same user also created 2008 Irish flash floods. Equally better suited to "the news" (structured as it is as a day-by-day update with limited longterm "encyclopedic" context). And similarly dodgy in terms of classification as a "natural disaster" - certainly when compared to other events that are categorised as such. Both "articles" are a little (how to put this) "shortsighted". Given that flooding has been occuring for thousands/millions of years along every river in the world. And will for years to come (if the LHC doesn't collapse space and time in upon itself next month). Anyway, it just goes to my point that just because something was on the news doesn't make it worth an article all on its own- synthesizing content from multiple news sources. With no lonterm/encyclopedic context. That is actually kinda what Wikinews is for. Not for here. I think I'll actually let the user know about Wikinews. Again. Coz maybe he/she just doesn't appreciate the difference. Guliolopez (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this was not created as a joke. In fact I failed to realise that such a situation would arise. It only seems to have happened though after it was put up for DYK which surely shouldn't be the case. I created it after witnessing it broadcast on a national news bulletin. The news bulletin itself seemed more concerned about the ecological aspect of the disaster rather than the lack of loss of life. It seems irrational to ignore an ecological disaster if enough people haven't be killed to make it notable. And by coincidence just as I created it it was back in the news again. So it was fairly continual.

This is on the talk page but I'll leave it here again.

OK. First of all. A quote.

"Up to 30,000 people in north Kerry were left without a water supply due to polluted water courses and threatened reservoirs." [34]

That line is referenced by an article from The Irish Times, a national newspaper with no special relationship with County Kerry. 30,000 people is a lot of people, certainly by Irish standards. So a highly regarded national newspaper has reported that 30,000 people have been affected by this occurence. Another reference in the article is from national broadcaster RTÉ, whose news bulletin was how I first came to hear of this.

This article may not be up to everyone's taste but that seems to be because most of the inclination to use local sources which I thought would be a good place to start. There are many national sources available which I have not had time to complete but I thought the inclusion of at least one source from a national newspaper and a national broadcaster would at least appease those who are opposed such "local" events whilst serving to remind that there are easily other references available.

"A news event is notable if it receives significant, continual coverage in sources with national or global scope." Well it certainly received significant, continual coverage in sources with national scope.

Of course the article needs tidying up but I have never claimed that it was perfect. If I used any lines that appeared exaggerated or extreme they were marked with a reference number directly afterwards. After all, it is not a matter of my opinion, I was just referring to what was said in the aftermath of the event.

The idea that the bogslide (a word I have not made up - it is used in the references and is taught in geography classes in schools across the country) closed one road and therefore is not notable is wrong as, if the article were read again, it would become quite clear that much more damage than the closure of one road was caused. --Candlewicke (Talk) 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article states that "The original bogslide extended to over four kilometres on August 22 and August 23, destroying an estimated 10 hectares (25 acres) of bog, engulfing two bridges and led to the closure of a section of road, resulting in motorists having to undertake a 16 km (10 mi) diversion. It was reported that it could take anything up to six months to fix the road." A 10 mile diversion in a road is not notable, 25 acres of displaced bog is not notable, and 30,000 people having to buy bottled water isn't notable. Just because the Irish Times reported it doesn't mean that it's notable. The Philadelphia Inquirer (the Philly metro area is approximately the same population as Ireland) prints dozens of stories that I read every day, but not every one deserves a Wikipedia article wp:not. There's also no evidence of continual coverage on a national scope, just a single blurb. This could be Wikinews and is actually an amusing, well-written article, all the hyperbole notwithstanding. It is not encyclopedic though. dzhastin (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - Well that may be true but if that's the case can very many articles be created that refer to Ireland or say to other small countries? The Irish Times and other such newspapers are the highest placed newspapers in the country, you can go no higher from an Irish point of view on news delivery than being national. It seems perfectly irrational to compare a newspaper in a large country with the same population as a small country to a national newspaper of a small country reporting on an event which is considerably large enough by that country's standards. Of course not everything in appear such as The Philadelphia Enquirer would make it onto Wikipedia. Neither would everything from The Irish Times. But the use of sources is only part of the argument and does not take into account the event itself. From the point of view of a large country like the US of course these measurements are probably non-notable. But by Irish standards events like this don't happen every day. 30,000 people is a considerable chunk of the population. What I have to ask is whether events in smaller countries are taken into context by those who are situated and have lived most of their lives in larger countries? And if they aren't what are we left with? An encyclopedia that is dominated with stories of events that occur in large countries with large populations because there are more people to be affected and therefore the event is on a larger scale and whereby anything that is relevant to smaller countries is systematically removed due to only a tiny handful of people being affected? What are the encyclopedic quotas for "bottled water"? Would 300,000 suffice? That would be nigh on 1/10 of the Irish population... yet if 300,000 Irish people had no water supply (a fairly significant occurrence on a national level I would imagine compared to, say, in the US or China or even compared to the UK) that argument could still be used against it. Which seems a little overprotective. --Candlewicke (Talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My last comment. Actually there is a notability criteria for natural disasters. And this fails it. See: Wikipedia:EVENT#Disasters. The simple fact is that the media totally over-blew and sensationalised this event. Giving as they did absolutely no global context for it. The quotes and sensationalist hyperbole in the Kerryman newspaper for example ""one of the most frightening and overwhelming events ever witnessed" and "It’s frightening. We dread to think that we’ll never see home in the future" are ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE when you consider that the only material impacts were that people had to drive the long way around to the shops, boil their water, and spend a few months repaving a road. We on the other hand are not a local newspaper, and should be giving a global and objective perspective. When for example you put the above quotes in the global/objective context of the 1999 Vargas mudslides - which killed TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOP -E, the sensationalism stands out as trite and embarrassing. We shouldn't inherit this sensationalism in a Wikipedia article. That's my opinion at least. Anyway, I'm going to shut-up now coz it sounds like I'm ranting against the article. I'm not. The writing/sourcing/construction is good. It's just that its inappropriately inheriting notability imposed by a sensationalist press. That we shouldn't inherit. Move to Wikinews instead. Guliolopez (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Possibly irrelevant but interesting that the nominating editor has a total of 30 edits to their name, most of which have been on this article. Has inexperience provoked a rushed nomination? Praiseworthy all the same. End of. --140.203.12.243 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Based on some of the rationale given to date both for deleting and for keeping, I've done some cleanup of the actual article in an attempt to see if our reasons remain the same after cleanup. The tone of the article has changed which might affect how we view it. Take a look. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well. That is now IMMEASURABLY better. With all the hyperbole, sensationalist quotes and other wikisource/wikinews stuff removed, it certainly appears to be a lot more encyclopaedic in aspect. I still think it fails WP:EVENT though and is more a news item than a standalone Encyclopaedia article/reference source that has independent merit. I struggle therefore with changing my vote to a keep. I've "downgraded" my delete vote accordingly though. Very good work though. Guliolopez (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and re-copy edit it when I have time. It's a shame, cause the prose was wonderful but not so encyclopaedic before - now the article is more encyclopaedic but the prose may be in need of some work. Brilliantine (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Humor - Support Yes! Actually, the article in it's original form would be perfect for wikipedia:humor. It was a very well crafted article with good references, formatting and prose and was very amusing to me. I just didn't think it was encyclopedic. dzhastin (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. henrik•talk 18:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Cosmic Engineers[edit]

Order of Cosmic Engineers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is..uh..this is something. This is a non-notable guild I guess, tied to some new-age spiritualism. Some of the individual members might be notable, but the guild itself, or organization, or whatever it is exactly isn't notable. Before anyone points to all the "sources" in the article, none of the sources outside of a blog from a science fiction writer, actually talk about the subject. Mostly they're citing real events which occurred, but its the article that ties them to the group, not the sources themselves. This was deleted and restored on the promise of sources, but this is a bloody mess. There is nothing here to justify keeping this article. The only thing that can be provided that references them is obscure blogs. Their one criticism comes from a comment that that science fiction author made on his blog post, not even the post itself. This is how obscure and far reaching they are to try and find sources which actually mention the group by name. We'll get this out of the way to start with: Afd is not a vote if you want to see the article kept provide some reliable sources which demonstrate significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rimon Law Group[edit]

Rimon Law Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, per WP:CORP. Available information is all promotional. The references in Reuters and Marketwatch come from press releases. Also, previously deleted under name Rimon Law Group, Inc. John Nagle (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've just had a look at WP:N and it does not stipulate multiple sources in order to pass the WP:N test. Bstone (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take the use of plural throughout to imply that one single source isn't good enough. This is how I've always interpreted it and that's not going to change, as it seems like a perfectly common-sense way of looking at the policy to me. In any case, it does specify that multiple sources are preferred. This is not a particularly mainstream news source, so to rely solely on it would be an extremely silly interpretation. Brilliantine (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was the independent press which described it as "part of the trend" and the press makes it survive the notability test. Bstone (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N does not require multiple sources in independent press in order to establish notability. This firm has press in an independent source and thus it quite easily passes the notability test. Bstone (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While there is one press release cited there is also an article firmly establishing notability in independent press. Thus, it passes the notability and reliable source test quite easily. Bstone (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By your (in my opinion) rather eccentric interpretation of the notability criteria, there could be an article about pretty much anything. I hope you're not offended, but I do have to ask: Do you have a conflict of interest here? Brilliantine (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can I, an EMT who lives in Boston, have an conflict of interest with a law firm in Israel? Do you always suspect a WP:COI whenever you have differing opinions with people? Please remember to assume good faith about contributors. Bstone (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was only asking on the off-chance, as you created the article and have been defending it very consistently on here. It is possible for people to have conflicts of interests relating people or things in different locations - through family, friends etc - this is common sense. As you can see from my contribs, this is the only AFD I have commented on for which I have even considered the possibility that there might be a WP:COI involved. Lastly, a conflict of interest does not necessarily constitute bad faith. I am not questioning your good faith - I was merely enquiring. Brilliantine (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Effective Governance[edit]

Foundation for Effective Governance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination (PROD, de-PROD, re-PROD). First PROD stated: "Unclear notability, written in overly promotional tone". De-PROD (by me) edit summary stated: "further reading section added with link to 'media about Foundation'; items here can be brought into this article to support notability as reliable sources". Second PROD stated: "notability". Second PROD permalink is also the version current at the time of nomination here at AfD. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Any subsequent discussion about merging to Champagne socialist, chattering classes, liberal elite, etc is not something for AFD to determine, although it strikes me as a good idea worth exploring. fish&karate 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gauche caviar[edit]

Gauche caviar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chardonnay socialist

Seems to lack notability, seems like a simple dictionary definition. — Realist2 00:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

c.80,000 google hits suggests it might not be made up - but in any case, it isn't worth an article. Brilliantine (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Segolene Royale article is not really a good source as it does not give coverage of the article subject. All it does is prove the phrase exists. Good sourcing for this would need to consist of articles on or scholarly philological coverage of the phrase itself. Brilliantine (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Brilliantine's comment seems to have overlooked the references in the French interwikid article which show that good sourcing is available. S/he also ignores my reference to the book by fr:Laurent Joffrin. For everyone's benefit I will provide the citation:
  • Joffrin, Laurent (2006). Histoire de la gauche caviar. Paris: Éditions Robert Laffont.
The publisher also has a French wikipedia article at fr:Éditions Robert Laffont - ie notable publisher . The link to the publisher's blurb The Amazon link to the book . The blurb states:

La « gauche caviar »… Est-ce une fausse gauche qui dit ce qu’il faut faire et qui ne fait pas ce qu’elle dit ? Une tribu frivole et tartuffe qui aime le peuple et se garde bien de partager son sort ? Pis encore, est-ce qu’elle n’introduirait pas, en douce, les réflexes des classes bourgeoises au sein du mouvement progressiste ? Ces gens-là seraient des traîtres, tout simplement.
Dans un pamphlet polémique et historique, Laurent Joffrin analyse ce phénomène apparemment superficiel qui a joué un grand rôle et souvent fait la différence dans le jeu politique, en France comme ailleurs. La gauche caviar irrite, certes, mais constatons qu’elle a toujours reçu les renforts de nombreux bourgeois riches et éclairés. Qu’ils ont souvent dirigé des partis de gauche, servi la classe ouvrière, œuvré pour le progrès et qu’ils furent constamment pour les socialistes un éclaireur, une aide, un compagnon. De Voltaire à Zola, de Victor Hugo à Kennedy, de Philippe d’Orléans à Keynes, la gauche caviar a été composée d’hommes et de femmes de qualité, d’une efficacité décisive et qui eurent une fonction essentielle dans la marche des événements.
En 2006, qu’en est-il ? L’argent-roi depuis les années 1990 a entraîné derrière lui et dans les tourbillons de la mondialisation une gauche caviar qui s’est peu à peu coupée des réalités. Le reste de la population s’est replié dans la condamnation d’une modernité toujours plus injuste. Et la gauche caviar a abandonné son rôle de charnière, c’est-à-dire son rôle historique. Il faut sonner l’alarme pour fermer la porte à tous les populismes et séparer clairement les partisans du progrès et ceux du conservatisme. C’est le but de ce livre.

Which in English translated by bablefish :

The “left caviar”… Is this a false left which says what it is necessary to make and which does not do only it says? A frivolous tribe and sanctimonious hypocrite who loves the people and take care well not to share its fate? Worse still, wouldn't it introduce, into soft, the reflexes of the middle-class classes within the movement progressist? These people-there would be traitors, quite simply. In a polemical and historical lampoon, Laurent Joffrin analyzes this apparently surface phenomenon which played a great role and often made the difference in the political game, in France like elsewhere. The left caviar irritates, certainly, but note that it always received the reinforcements of many rich and lit middle-class men. That they often directed left parties, served the working class, works for progress and that they were constantly for the Socialists a scout, a help, a companion. Of Voltaire with Zola, of Victor Hugo in Kennedy, Philippe of Orleans with Keynes, the left caviar was made up men and women of quality, of a decisive effectiveness and who had an essential function in the walk of the events. In is 2006, qu ' in? The money-king since the years 1990 involved behind him and in the swirls of universalization a left caviar which cut realities little by little. The remainder of the population was folded up in the judgment of a modernity increasingly more unjust. And the left caviar gave up its role of hinge, i.e. its historical role. It is necessary to sound alarm to close the door with all the populisms and to clearly separate the partisans from progress and those of conservatism. It is the goal of this book.

I won't clean up the translation - it is enough to to give the gist for the sake of this discussion. A reference in English to the book in the context of Ségolène Royal's failure to win against Sarkozy is at http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/royal_4110.jsp :

As Laurent Joffrin, former editor of the magazine Le Nouvel Observateur (and soon to take over the ailing daily Libération), explains in his Histoire de la gauche caviar (History of the Caviar Left): these bobos (bohemian bourgeois) have all but forgotten about the people. Meanwhile, her probable opponent Nicolas Sarkozy seems only to know how to boss the people around in the name of security, order and controlling immigration.

AfD is not supposed to be a call for improvement to articles, it is to discuss whether an article should exist or not. On the basis that reliable sources exist to expand the article beyond a mere dicdef, the article should be kept. --Matilda talk 20:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually think that this source does much more than prove the term's use as a synonym for all of the other ad hominems being discussed. It certainly doesn't seem to discuss the phrase's usage and background, rather it merely applies it. Brilliantine (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - but I am not sure I comprehend - we have a book by a notable author entirely devoted to the term gauche caviar - how do you think it "doesn't seem to discuss the phrase's usage and background" ? How is it that a phrase that according to a prominent French political commentator is "apparently [a] surface phenomenon which played a great role and often made the difference in the political game, in France like elsewhere" is unworthy of an article. Other sources - in French are http://pluriel.free.fr/gauche_debat10.html A bebelfish translation (unedited as this is merely a discussion not a ref for the article) of the lead indicates the definition is available from this source:

There had been the intellectual left, the left criticizes, the moderated left, the radical left… Since the Eighties, it there with the left caviar. This n' is more from now on one political positioning which colours l' membership of the left, c' is a sociocultural and economic marker. The Left caviar would be these rich, anonymous or known people who would have their entries in the circles of the capacity qu' it is economic, media, cultural or political, without necessarily in being and which would have a level or an easy way of life. This definition of course does not satisfy because, it does not comprise the moral share which is appropriate. The left caviar is inevitably middle-class with the warping direction of the term, it knows misery only d' in top and thus, for it, being of left, c' is to revolt comfortably. In fact, one reproaches those which l' one affuble of this nickname not to resemble those enough qu' they claim to defend and to miss sincerity and d' authenticity in their engagements.

Alternatively from La Libre Belgique - essentially a review of the book but a disussion also: http://www.lalibre.be/index.php?view=article&art_id=288175

The lawsuit of the left caviar
Eric de Bellefroid
26/05/2006
The fall of the elites progressists Frenchwomen magistralement dismounted by Laurent Joffrin
Director of the drafting of “Nouvel Observateur”, Laurent Joffrin enjoys for this reason d' noble and worthy expertise in what looks at the left caviar. This left which reads its newspaper d' access, and that this one observes very near in return.
Left in a remote exploration the phenomenon, it brings back qu' to us; there existed already in ancient Rome, and qu' a certain middle-class elite - even aristocratic - s' is attached for a long time to the cause of the popular classes. Thus it was seen with Voltaire, Fayette, Talleyrand or the duke d' Orleans, but still with Victor Hugo or Emile Zola, and even in the United States with president John F. Kennedy or in England with the brilliant economist John Maynard Keynes.
A USEFUL CASTE
If French socialism s' d' is ever prevailed; a less tradition ouvrierist, it owed it with proletarian masses which were pleased d' to have at their head of the chiefs able to dominate the line until over the plans cultural and intellectual. Also the left known as caviar caused it the vindication of this line as much as the hatred of l' extreme left. “Bringing the reinforcement d' one entregent and d' a competence, it was useful.”
But this n' is more the case, objects Laurent Joffrin. “The left caviar n' had ever lived with the people but it served it, what qu' one says. It l' gave up. It s' is put to think without him and even against him.” And that because, in the years 1990, l' money took its fol take-off. The financiarisation of l' economy, doped by the liberal internationalization, involved all the leading class in its morbidity.
Admittedly the left reformist, according to Joffrin, n' it does not have demerit of the working class and socialist values; it will have even humanized capitalism. While its historical assessment is sometimes brilliant, sometimes disappointing, but always honourable, the things thus are spoiled after 1990. Left of luxury, which was found so well in l' example of Pierre Mendès France, radical middle-class man, then will be found committal for trial.
THE TIME OF THE RIGOUR
The first years Mitterrand n' had however not been bad. “Technos” of the second left, Mauroy, Delors or Rocard, s' they s' were d' access évertués to implement the 110 proposals of the candidate-president, had negotiated since 1983 the salutary one “turning of the rigour”, ceasing cultivating the myth of the rupture with capitalism and fastening France with l' rather; Europe and with l' market economy...

It is quite obvious that the term exists and has been defined and discussed extensively - including its history and usage. There are sources available - the article should be kept and developed. --Matilda talk 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(unindent) What I'm trying to say is that the phrase is no more than a synonym or a translation of, for instance, "Champagne Socialist". Do we have the French word for "libertarian" as an article? Of course not. How should this be any different? I wouldn't mind noting it as a French language expression of the concept if a unified article is created, but it has no particular notability as a separate article. A notable phrase, especially a foreign language one, would be one for which the phrase itself is discussed - i.e. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, which has been discussed specifically as a phrase in terms of its meaning, usage and from the point of view of linguistics as a tripartite slogan. Brilliantine (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what you are perhaps proposing is a merge to Champagne socialist? A merger is not deletion. --Matilda talk 00:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the options I have given in my !vote above. Brilliantine (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys want to merge things, there are quite a lot of other similar terms that could be merged I believe. We could create a list "terms used to annoy liberals" lol. Sorry, nothing wrong with a bit of humour in these heated debates. — Realist2 00:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with humour :-) My issue with the merger would be breach of WP:SYNTH. We can find sources that link them but ...--Matilda talk 00:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is in Larousse - see ref - search for caviar --Matilda talk 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Snow'ed in. No assertion of notability. CSD'ed twice, PROD'ed once. seicer | talk | contribs 02:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester city ligers[edit]

Leicester city ligers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence that this pro dodgeball team is notable. Being mentioned in an article about a charity event doesn't cut it. Was speedied twice, with one contested prod.OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's My Life/Bathwater (The Remixes)[edit]

It's My Life/Bathwater (The Remixes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Articles are for songs, not singles, and both of these songs already have articles. Very unlikely search term. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Dalby[edit]

Possible conflict of interest, author is Emilia's own father and has only ever edited this article. "Emilia Dalby" gets 114 Google hits. Proposal for deletion was contested, so going to AfD instead. I vote delete. JIP | Talk 04:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More